Full Version: Using photos on structures
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
In the latest MR mag, Lance Mindheim has an article on using photos. Take prototype pics of buildings, enlarge and edit in a photo-edit program, then cut out and glue to the structure. Has anyone ever used that technique?

In the past, I had always thought that, for example, an HO scale brick or cmu wall should be made from plastic with the mortar lines recessed. But as he said in the article, an HO scale mortar recess would be something like .0006 inches deep - not enough to even be felt!

The photo technique almost seems like cheating. All the weathering would be there, etc. But it would still take some skill on the editing - any items like drain spouts and conduits and vents would need to be edited out and actually modeled with styrene or wire.

And what about mixing structures made from this technique being on the same layout with normally constructed buildings? Would there be a noticable difference?
I would think this would be one of those things that could look okay in photos, but not in person. Maybe for background or temporary buildings I would consider this, but I tend to see texture on buildings that is a wee bit deeper than mortar joints (window sills, door and window recesses, gutters...) Icon_lol Once you start adding all the details that are large enough to create texture, you may as well just build a building the conventional way.
nachoman Wrote:I would think this would be one of those things that could look okay in photos, but not in person. Maybe for background or temporary buildings I would consider this, but I tend to see texture on buildings that is a wee bit deeper than mortar joints (window sills, door and window recesses, gutters...) Icon_lol Once you start adding all the details that are large enough to create texture, you may as well just build a building the conventional way.
Cheers

No matter how small the variation, I think the eye/brain is more aware of texture. Stand as far from a building as you stand in scale feet from a model building with "Photo-bricks", and you will see texture, that you won't see on the model.

Or.........let me put it this way. A camera has one eye, most of us have two, and therefore depth perception, which is relatively sensitive in resolution of "texture".
The "three foot rule", in HO scale, is the 261' rule in 1:1 scale........and I think, in reality, the eye can perceive texture at 261', even that of mortar joints, especially if the light hits it from the right angle.

How many times have you seen the "edge of a decal", and just how thick is decal film?
Sumpter250 Wrote:No matter how small the variation, I think the eye/brain is more aware of texture. Stand as far from a building as you stand in scale feet from a model building with "Photo-bricks", and you will see texture, that you won't see on the model.

our brains also want us to see something there that it expects to be there. In other words, we see a brick pattern, and we expect to see the texture we are accustomed to. If we don't see the texture, it simply looks "wrong". In a modeling sense, sometimes it is better to exaggerate a texture (rivets are a good example) than to do without.
Re: texture -

Scale sand would have the texture of flour, but using flour on the layout looks "wrong". I think the guys arguing in favour of visible texture at the expense of exact scale representation may be onto something...

Re: "Proto-photo" backdrop versus model foreground -

There was an interesting article recently that showed how you might create a photo backdrop - but using photos of model structures. Although it sounded counter intuitive when compared with the "traditional" approach, it actually looks very good. It also allows you to correct the perspective problems that sometimes occur with the commercial backdrops.

Andrew
My two cent. I saw photos of a back front of a white shoe box building made by Lance some years ago ( http://www.lancemindheim.com/crossing_12...nue_ii.htm ). The front was made with a photo as described in the article. It look really great at least on the photos in the magazine. Therefor I would give it a try if I had a raw photo and the skill of photo manipulation on the PC. It costs no money and it is worth a try.
I see it as 'everything old becomes new again'. Modeling with printed paper is much older than styrene and has been advocated since the origins of the hobby in the 30's and 40's by the 'pioneers' such as Frank Ellison. His famous example was a stone arch bridge that had been completely painted. When folks would complement the bridge he would tell them to go up and touch it, just to see the shock on their faces when they realized it was flat. And that was O scale! But he was also a theatre person who understood visual trickery, as was John Allen with his artistic background.

I think our modern methods of computer printing have enabled many more people to have access to better techniques for simulating texture & depth through graphic trickery. I remember an article in MR several years ago now that came out of the Rennselaer model club in NY, if memory serves me. It was advocating using decal paper to simulate brick walls. There was a process of photographing, straightening out the skew angles, resizing, all while keeping the resolution high naturally, then printing and applying the decal. Decal setting solution could be used to nestle the decal down into any cracks & crannies for added relief texture. The results were stunning but it was alot of work.

Also to consider is the difference between realism and representation. Minton Chronkite & Frank Ellison could be considered representationalists. They made models as realistic as necessary to represent the prototype. It didn't have to be accurate, but it did have to look right and convince the viewer that what they were seeing was the real thing represented in miniature. The logical extreme would be something like simple paper mockups or even just a picture on a card cut-out (2D) to stand-in for an industry or home or hillside.

On the other end of things is realism down to the tiniest detail. I think the hobby press has been pushing realism over representation, because most of us strive for realism and settle for a representation. It really is a sliding scale and we all fall somewhere on it. I think many modelers would be happier with a representationist approach so that they could operate sooner & in a better setting rather than having to wait for scenery to fill in. These are the folks who build a mock-up that never gets beyond that stage because they're so busy having fun running trains and the mock-up serves its purpose well enough. If the press would print more articles on making representative structures we may have more modelers like that!

Galen
Popcornbeer
Thanks for the observations.

Kevin, I agree that the technique would look good in photos but not necessarily in person. As Sumpter250 said, our brains expect to see texture, even if at 1/87 it would be almost non-existent. And good point about the rivets.

Galen, good point about "representation" versus "exact modeling". Again, I think our brains want to see what they expect to see. There are many things out in the real world that if we modeled them exactly, we would think they didn't look right.

But as Reinhard pointed out, I may try the technique at some point just to see if it works. Maybe just a concrete foundation.
Gary S Wrote:Again, I think our brains want to see what they expect to see. There are many things out in the real world that if we modeled them exactly, we would think they didn't look right.

This is something that I might never have completely understood, but...... I had a chance to view some matte paintings, used as background substitutes ( to hide the real background ) in motion pictures. The amazing thing is the real lack of specific detail in those paintings, and the apparent detail in the film. Reason ??? our eyes, and brain, are focused on the "action", not the background.
One of the modules that was part of the "modular group" layout, had a background, hand painted on the skyboard. It wasn't until the eye followed a train through the scene, that the effect was clearly realized. As soon as the eye was following the train, the background became perfect, for exactly the same reasons as the matte paintings work so well in film.

"Seeing", is more a process of the brain, than it is a process of the eye.
Ahh! Master Pete! You so often say things that ring so true to me ... we may have been in the same "visuals observation" class at some point in time!

It was in Junior year in the Industrial Design program at art school, when I was desperately trying to discover the secret of representing chrome, in the form of a chromed, reversed, deep dished wheel, that I came to the realization that the majority of people "look" at an object, but only a small minority actually "see" it.
ocalicreek Wrote:Also to consider is the difference between realism and representation. Minton Chronkite & Frank Ellison could be considered representationalists. They made models as realistic as necessary to represent the prototype. It didn't have to be accurate, but it did have to look right and convince the viewer that what they were seeing was the real thing represented in miniature.
On the other end of things is realism down to the tiniest detail. I think the hobby press has been pushing realism over representation, because most of us strive for realism and settle for a representation. It really is a sliding scale and we all fall somewhere on it. I think many modelers would be happier with a representationist approach so that they could operate sooner & in a better setting rather than having to wait for scenery to fill in. These are the folks who build a mock-up that never gets beyond that stage because they're so busy having fun running trains and the mock-up serves its purpose well enough. If the press would print more articles on making representative structures we may have more modelers like that!

Galen

Galen, you're certainly correct: whether or not most of us strive for realism, we all, ultimately, have to settle for a representation. The degree to which such a representation is convincing depends for only a small part on how realistically the work has been done, and , for the most part, on the impression conveyed to the viewer. And, of course, the perception of each viewer will also vary.
In my opinion, as long as the person doing the modelling is appropriately convinced, the rest of the public, as William H. Vanderbilt proclaimed, "be damned." Wink Goldth That's not to say that our personal perceptions won't change over time, though, and what was once "good enough" may eventually need to be brought up to one's current standards. This Forum is a good place to see what can be done and to learn how to do it. Goldth

Wayne
After reading this thread i decided to have a little fun and make a building that would sit behind my small community baseball field, sort of reminiscent of Wrigley Field with the buildings whose roofs are populated by fans enjoying a free view of the game. I printed a photo of a model building i found on a French model railroad site that was noted in another thread and went from there. Big Grin

[Image: IMG_1864.jpg]

[Image: IMG_1866.jpg]

The effect isn't bad. I plan to replace the background buildings some time but I kinda like the way this turned out.

Ralph
I think it looks good, Ralph. At the very least pictures of buildings used on a back drop can be a good stand in until you get a replacement building built or back drop painted.
I use photos for background and also for small parts. I glue them onto foam blocks and they solve the depth problem. I use 1” foam extensively for scenery on my layout.

Photos of small parts like sheds, lockers, signal boxes, etc. also work well and are almost impossible to tell the difference.

Doc
Pages: 1 2